Press Conference
Speaker: Ambassador Koji Tsuruoka,
Title: Director General for Global Issues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

24 May, 2007

  1. Briefing on the policy speech on climate change to be delivered by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
  2. Questions concerning similar proposals from other nations
  3. Questions concerning implementation
  4. Questions concerning specific targets
  5. Questions concerning funding
  6. Questions on strategies for eliciting international participation
  7. Questions concerning Japan's current progress towards meeting the Kyoto Protocol target

I. Briefing on the policy speech on climate change to be delivered by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Public Relations Hiroshi Suzuki: Thank you very much for coming. My name is Hiroshi Suzuki. I am Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Public Relations. Today I wanted to create this special press briefing for Prime Minister Abe's major policy speech, which is due this evening.

It is my great pleasure to introduce Mr. Tsuruoka, who is the head of the Global Issues Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a moment, I will be turning over the floor to Mr. Tsuruoka. Before I do that, let me explain the ground rules. This will be an on-the-record briefing. You will be free to quote Mr. Tsuruoka's name. His title, to be more specific, is Ambassador Koji Tsuruoka; he is Director General for Global Issues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I will be inviting Ambassador Tsuruoka to speak to you on Prime Minister Abe's major policy speech. Ambassador Tsuruoka, please.

Ambassador Koji Tsuruoka, Director General for Global Issues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Thank you. You now have in front of you the English version of what has been made available to the Japanese press just a while ago. It is composed of two page summary of the actual text of the speech which Prime Minister Abe is scheduled to deliver this evening, and attachments that refer to some of the content of the speech, the more technical ones delivered in more detail. Today I would like to just go through very quickly by referencing this summary first, and then take questions. I do not know how much time you have, but I would be happy to take as many questions as possible.

Before going on to the text of the summary, let me share with you the process that led to the Prime Minister's speech this evening. You may know that earlier this year, the Prime Minister instructed the Environment Minister Wakabayashi to consider the 21st Century Environment Nation Strategy and the Minister of the Environment has instructed his own commission to study further how this could be materialized. In the process of the Environmental Ministry's study, the Prime Minister again instructed through Chief Cabinet Secretary Shiozaki to have an ad hoc ministerial meeting comprising the Minister of the Environment, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry and Minister of Foreign Affairs, chaired by the Chief Cabinet Secretary on behalf of the Prime Minister to study how best Japan could contribute to the global theme of climate change and global warming. He had, of course, in mind the process that will lead to the G8 summit to be held next year in Japan. But the issue is global and long-term and of course transcends this meeting in Japan. The four ministers met four times at the ministerial level, which was preceded by all the relevant agencies and officials elaborating how the government could materialize Prime Minister Abe's instruction. It is now taking the shape of this speech, which will be delivered this evening.

That is the background and domestic process that led to this speech. The Prime Minister himself is very aware that the issue of global warming is an international, global issue. He has spoken to the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, when he was in Japan. They have agreed, and I think it was also made available in English in the joint document on the environment, that China will participate very seriously in the future framework discussion on climate change. This was a significant move by the Chinese government since it was endorsed by the Premier himself. Secondly, when the Prime Minister visited the United States, you are also aware that one joint statement was issued by the President and the Prime Minister, referring again to the issue of climate change. This was a reconfirmation by the Bush administration that they will work toward stabilization of greenhouse gas concentration. We have been in touch with the United States government along the way.

The next diplomatic agenda is in your document. You will see that immediately after the speech, the Prime Minister will move onto Germany and attend the Heilingendamm G8 Summit chaired by Chancellor Merkel. The issue of climate change is going to be, if not the most central issue, one of the most important issues of the G8 agenda in Germany. Those countries that are called "O five," included in the outreach program, will also come to Heilingendamm to discuss. We are expecting that in that meeting as well, climate change will be an essential topic.

Looking at the series of already-scheduled meetings through the end of 2008, I have prepared this calendar for your reference. There will be many occasions where the relevant countries or the United Nations gathering will take place and discuss climate change. It is looking at these diplomatic and international meetings that the Prime Minister is launching his initiative this evening.

If you could look at the summary (two pages), the speech today is titled "Invitation to Cool Earth 50." Let me explain what it means. "Invitation" is because this is something the Prime Minister believes we ought to do together, that Japan alone is not going to be capable of producing what is necessary for the future of the globe. We would like to invite everyone to join us in this effort. "Cool Earth." This is a term that he has come up with, intending that it is going to be a response to global warming in terms of being cool, but also something that will be nice if we can achieve this. "Fifty" refers to element one, the year 2050, and the target of halving, or reducing by half, the emission by that time.

Since there is not much time, I do not think that I should go through each and every sentence of the summary. But the idea is based on the recognition that first of all, this is a very, very important issue. As a Prime Minister, who is not only responsible for the Japanese people of today but looks into the future and appreciates his responsibility of starting to act now, the long-term objective which is, if you look at the overview of the proposal, you can see that Pillar 1, the first pillar, is referring to the long-term strategy. The long-term strategy identifies a long-term target of cutting global emissions by half from the current level by 2050, and it is a proposal for the countries to share this recognition. The means to achieve this is not currently available. We have to come up with not only innovative but also revolutionary technologies that will allow us to achieve this goal, and also at the same time not only technologies, but how people live everyday life and how society is conducted will also be an important part of this initiative and therefore building what we call a low-carbon society, coupled with innovative technologies, are going to be the means to achieve this target.

Pillar 2 addresses a more immediate problem of how we ought to approach the post-Kyoto framework discussion, that is, beyond 2013. Three principles are indicated: One, all major emitters must participate because the post-Kyoto must move beyond Kyoto, meaning that it will have to encompass all the countries of the world and in particular, the large emitters. In order to do so, the second principle is that this framework must be flexible and diverse. It will also have to take into account the different circumstances each country faces. The third principle is to make it compatible between environmental protection and economic growth, because if this is one or the other, then you really will not be able to achieve the global coverage that is absolutely needed.

At the same time, Japan is considering to create a new financial mechanism to enable us to extend support to developing countries that will come on board with high aspirations, aiming at making compatible the environmental protection and economic growth. We will also make further effort to improving energy efficiency. We will be prepared to share the fruit of that with the other countries. That is inclusive of a more active use of nuclear energy.

The issues such as emissions trading or other economic incentives will be methods that will be studied along the way.

The third pillar refers to what Japan will do in order to achieve the target of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a national campaign led by the Prime Minister himself. You may know that we have a Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan, which was decided by the Cabinet in an effort to indicate to the pubic at large what we should do to achieve the Kyoto Protocol target. This will be reviewed and reinforced in the near future so that we will indeed be able to ensure achieving the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, and this will include a broader spectrum than it was at the time of the initial achievement plan, extending to municipalities and major business and others. It will also call for effort on the part of households; an idea that is going to be presented is with the motto of reducing greenhouse gases by "one person, one day, one kilogram."

That is very briefly and very abstractly what the Prime Minister will be stating. There are some more details in the text of the speech, and I would be happy to take questions on any part that you may find in front of you.

II. Questions concerning similar proposals from other nations

Press: I would like to ask first of all, how is the proposal different from the German proposal, which I thought was similar: to reduce emissions from current levels by half by 2050? I thought that the proposal that the Germans wanted to discuss at the G8, or had proposed discussing at the G8 was setting a target of halving emissions by 2050.

Mr. Tsuruoka: I cannot speak on behalf of the Germans. I know what the European Union (EU) has adopted as their position on climate change, and there are a number of elements in the EU decision that we are aware of and that is publicly available information. On this long-term objective, as far as I know, I believe the Europeans are advocating to set a long-term target of reduction by half by 2050, base year being 1990.

The difference is that we do not indicate the base year, and that may be on the surface a missing element on our part. This is intentional. First of all, when we talk about 2050, it may not be centuries away, but it is still some time away, and we do not have sufficient scientific knowledge to be very precise or concrete in identifying a goal in a very specific way. It is going to be a vision that could be shared as a target that could be accepted and shared by all the countries of the world, but if we are to set a target in 2050 which may have an element of being binding or mandatory, then you have to really work out to define it very precisely, because it will be an obligation for the entire world to achieve, or after that for each and every country to achieve. That is not our intention, because that is still not possible scientifically, and also at the same time, since we are talking about 2050, we still have some time before reaching that year.

What we need to be more focused on is the second pillar that I mentioned earlier, which is what are the issues that we need to address and have concrete consensus on the post-Kyoto framework, and that is what are the major elements that we need to identify and agree on for the framework that will be available to us for the period post-2013.

Press: I am sorry, just a follow up. So this is not a proposal that -- when are you thinking that this might be agreed upon? You mentioned all these meetings that are coming up. When would Japan like to see this non-binding target agreed upon?

Mr. Tsuruoka: It may be difficult for you to understand. We do not insist you say yes or no. For us, this vision of achieving this 50 percent reduction by 2050 is a very natural, logical conclusion. If we all agree that greenhouse gas emissions ought to be balanced in terms of the emissions and intake, the natural capacity of absorption -- this is what you may call the primary balance of the emission and the absorption -- and the most important element that we believe there is already an agreement among all the countries of the world is that this ought to be the shared target for all our work, the balancing of the emission and the absorption of the greenhouse gases.

That, translated in more simple terms to us is to say that this is reduction by 50 percent of the emissions by the year 2050. It is saying the same thing, but in a different way, because countries are looking at these percentage figures, and we thought that could be more easily understood than saying all these technicalities of emissions and absorption being balanced and so forth. That really is all there is to it.

We will be very surprised if countries do not agree that this is a commonly shared vision that we ought to pursue. Therefore we are not going to sell this and ask whether you agree on this or not, because we believe that that is not going to be the important objective or challenge for us diplomatically. The challenge, not only for us but all members of the global community, is to work out more concretely the substance of the post-2013 framework. We are saying that the three principles that we have that the Prime Minister will be indicating are going to be the deciding standards as to which tools, which methods, what approaches would be useful and conducive to reaching the ultimate target of balancing the emission and absorption. The immediate work is going to be the real hard work that we have to concentrate on.

III. Questions concerning implementation

Press: It is obviously very commendable that Japan is getting so involved in this, but it is a global problem, and obviously it is going to need some sort of global implementing agency, eventually. What is Japan's view on that? That a body like the United Nations (UN) might take it on? That there might be some entirely new body which will be called whatever it is called - the Save the Earth Foundation or whatever. I am not quite clear; the various countries have different ideas on this, but obviously all of these have to come together eventually under one roof. What is Japan's thinking on how this will all come together? What will be the implementing agency?

Mr. Tsuruoka: If you look at this chart, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that member states of the UN have used in the UN as a forum for drafting, and was adopted by the UN and opened for signature and ratification by the member states. I think it now comprises 189 countries' membership, and this is the basic convention that lays the ground for climate change discussion.

The Kyoto Protocol is called a "protocol" because it is an implementation of the principles agreed under the UNFCCC, and UNFCCC as you can see in the chart, together with the Kyoto Protocol, sets regular meetings whose agenda are decided by a consensus of the member states. The annual meeting, COP 13 or COP 14, is the contractors' meeting on a regular basis held once a year under the auspices of UNFCCC.

I am not quite sure what you mean by implementing agency; the Kyoto Protocol is already taking effect and will come into enforcement stage starting 1 January next year. We have a very elaborate system of many technical experts and UN officials who are keeping track, collecting statistics, providing us advice, and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for example has also been commissioned by the UN to conduct all the scientific research which they have been commissioned to come up with. We already have a very elaborate system in addressing climate change.

Press: So even though additional countries will come in and will remain under the same framework, essentially, the Kyoto Protocol is only a certain number of countries, a limited number. Under your plan, the Abe Plan, many more countries will become party to the agreement. So it continues still to come under this same framework, the UNFCCC.

If it is to have any binding force at all, it must presumably come under some body. I am not an expert on this, but my simple question is whether it remains under the same framework that the Kyoto Protocol is under. It is a much more ambitious scheme than the Kyoto Protocol. This is Japan's scheme; Germany, as my colleague has pointed out, has its own various ideas, and various other countries will have their own ideas too. My question is whether they will feed into the same mechanism eventually. That is essentially what I am asking.

Mr. Tsuruoka: I think that is an assumption that we all have, but we are not going to create a new UN.

Press: No, I do not think that you are going to create a new UN; I am simply asking. For example, you said that "we will create under international cooperation a new financial mechanism." What international cooperation? Would that be the World Bank? Or would that be under the same scheme?

Mr. Tsuruoka: That is a good question. If you look at page seven of the speech, there is a little bit of elaboration on what this means. The paragraph that answers your question will be the third paragraph, just before Measures and Energy. We say "Japan is ready to look into the possibility of creating a new financial mechanism with substantial size of funds for relatively long-term, and call on other industrialized countries and international organizations such as the World Bank and United Nations to respond and take part in international cooperation."

This is a mechanism that Japan is intending to create, formulate, or set up. You have to read the preceding two paragraphs to understand what this is aimed at.

I did not really know what were the common bases of knowledge on this issue amongst us, and perhaps I have to start from the basis to do this. This has about 25 years of history, as you may know; UNFCCC has been formulated in the 1980s, and it went onto the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol mechanism identifies a group of countries, and we, Japan, belong to the group of countries called Annex 1 countries. Annex 1 countries is the group of developed, industrialized countries, and the industrialized countries during the time of the Kyoto Protocol or through the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol were identified as being responsible for the existing greenhouse gases emissions. Therefore the industrialized countries in the group 1 category are the ones that will have to produce reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. During the negotiation it was agreed that the industrialized Group 1 as a whole will have to reduce in total five percent of their emissions from the level of 1990. That was the Kyoto Protocol, it has nothing to do with the new one.

Now, the other countries that are also signatory and party to the Kyoto Protocol, such as China, India, Korea, Mexico and others do not have any obligation to reduce or (the technical term is) "mitigate" greenhouse gas emissions. There were also countries that participated in negotiations but did not take part in the end. The typical example is the United States. We also have Australia, which is an Annex 1 country but has not joined the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, although they are industrialized countries, they are not part of the Kyoto Protocol.

This is the difficulty that we have in continuing the Kyoto Protocol process as-is. The coverage of the Kyoto Protocol extends only to -- even if you take the total of their emissions, 30 percent of global emissions; 70 percent is outside, especially in terms of it being mandatory. Even these mandatory ones are not going to go to zero all of a sudden, so it will have to be gradual. Therefore the current estimate, that even after the full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the reduction will be something like three percent, while the emissions will continue to grow.

China is developing its own economy, and the emissions of their gas of course increases every year. That is not in any kind of binding or limitation under the Kyoto Protocol. What we are now presenting to the world, and this is not something really new, is that we ought to be very serious about this issue of global warming, and if we are serious about global warming, the framework ought to be global and comprehensive. We are not talking about Japan doing A or B, because whatever effort we will do in the end will be negligible, even for us to protect our own environment, because the globe is one and the air has no boundaries. That is why we need to make this first and foremost global. The emphasis is on invitation. That is why we need to invite and have the invitees respond and come on board.

Press: Thank you, that is much clearer now.

Press: So even the post-Kyoto framework is by your invitation?

Mr. Tsuruoka: We of course do not own Kyoto, and this is an effort that we would like to have others join in. We of course will continue to make our own efforts; the effort is going to be aimed at achieving global coverage of participants in a meaningful way. If you repeat and have an exact copy of Kyoto for years from 2013 onward, we do not believe that will be an effective framework to prevent global warming. It is very simple arithmetic, really.

IV. Questions concerning specific targets

Press: Do you have any targets as far as stabilization date for CO2 and greenhouse gases? Do you have a temperature rise in mind that is acceptable, whether it is two degrees or above, and do you have a preferred cap in concentration of greenhouse gases?

Mr. Tsuruoka: The answer is really yes and no. We have our own expertise on each and every issue you have just raised. We also have our own views, but we have no intention of indicating our own preference, first of all, much less imposing what we prefer on others. The Kyoto Protocol is predicated on identifying a target and the means of achieving that, and then asking others to accept that, and that resulted in this limited participation. We are thinking very hard how we can break this deadlock. The issue is difficult enough even to have agreement among the industrialized world, and it will be even more difficult to have agreement with all 189 countries that are members of the UNFCCC. The discussion that has been going on for quite some time has not been able to go past the point of identifying what will be something that we could jointly produce that would be meaningful to future generations; it has been around "You do more, because what you do now is not enough."

That may be true; it is not that we are denying that, but then it is not namecalling or blaming each other that will allow us to move forward. We are not interested really to be the leader that has respect from a small part of the earth. This is something that we would like to have others join in. We will be very flexible, and that is why the second principle stresses the element of flexibility and diversity. Countries are different. The economic structure of each country is different; population, landscape, what industries they are strong on - these are all different. So you cannot give them one prescription that fits all.

The Kyoto Protocol and the effort that led to Kyoto, as you may know, only lasts for five years. It is from 2008 to 2012. Nobody believes, or even believed at that time, that these five years will resolve the global warming issue. It was seen as a first step, and this was a major first step because there was no step before that. At the same time, it was a step from which we expected to learn so that the step that we will be taking from 2013 on will be an improvement, if not a major leap, from what we have agreed to do between 2008 and 2012.

That is why we keep ourselves completely open. We are prepared to discuss very seriously each and every option that other countries may like to adopt, with the understanding that we are all committed to reach the target of reducing by half the greenhouse gas emissions in 2050. That is not going to be the term, the length of the second post-Kyoto period. I do not anticipate that at this time. The first is five years; the second cannot be thirty-some years going up in one stroke to 2050. I think there will be more on the way. And why? Because there will be different technologies, different circumstances that arise as we go along the way. It is sort of a rolling plan. The first plan is 2008-2012, and then 2013 to I do not know when -- that is something that we will have to agree on - and then maybe another one. But all of these different steps should be steps that lead us to achieving this balance of the emission and absorption, because if we can balance that, then we will be able to maintain the earth as a viable planet, and that is what we are trying to do.

The specific figures or measures that you have just cited will have to be debated, and we fully agree that these are relevant discussions, but those discussions have not led us to any progress so far, and that is the unfortunate part of the story. If we need to do this right, I think we should start from having everybody on the globe come on board and try to come up with what they believe to be useful and possible for those countries to implement. That is why we are intentionally avoiding citing any particular mechanism or any particular target as being the preferred one. We could live with any one that is a fair or pragmatic means or target. That is something that we are very comfortable with. That is why we are not stating any of the principles in a negative way, we are completely open, and that is why we are not identifying or indicating any particular measure as being the best.

To be very frank, we do not know what is best. We may know what is best for Japan, and you can see in the national campaign, and you will be seeing more of that when the revised plan will be made public, what we think is best for Japan in reducing the Japanese emissions, but we cannot write that for others. We cannot write one single prescription that can be effective for the whole globe; that is something that every country will have to come up with. Europeans have written theirs; that is all fine, we are not going to question the wisdom of that, because that is something they have decided, that they believe is good for them and is workable for them, but that does not translate into the conclusion that that format works in other parts of the world.

press: Just one little question about details. You said that the base year is not stated, but the summary says "by half from the current level." I have not looked through this - is that not quite right?

Mr. Tsuruoka: That is quite right. We are saying in broad terms "current." Current could be the several years in general. We are not saying 2007 is this year. Why we say "current" is because, and I am repeating myself a bit here, when we are talking about 2050, we do not have sufficient scientific knowledge to be very specific and precise today. That does not mean that when we go to the world of post-2013 there may not be a base year, because that is a closer and nearer future when we will have a more scientific basis to discuss in more detail. That is why we say current, which we believe is a concept that includes several years, let us say in the 21st century from the outset till today, and there is not much of a difference really. Even the scientific findings of IPCC have allowance on the volume of emissions and the volume of absorption of the gasses during these years, so we really cannot be very precise about that.

V. Questions concerning funding

Press: About development assistance that is being extended to developing countries: will that be additional to Japan's existing development programs, and in relation to the money that Japan already spends on aid, how will it compare? Will it be a tenth, the same amount, more? Is it possible to quantify?

Mr. Tsuruoka: Please look at page seven, where this is again elaborated a bit. The second paragraph refers to that. We fully understand that the developing countries should be not only allowed but encouraged to develop further their own economies. A particular example is China. Look at how the Japanese economy is benefiting from economic growth in China. Economic growth benefits everyone; it is a win-win situation, and we have no intention of placing a hold or stopping them from continuing to develop their own economy.

But at the same time, these greenhouse gas emissions is an issue that we need to tackle, and therefore while we do pay appropriate and necessary consideration to the interests of the developing countries, we really would like to maintain compatibility with environmental protection. For example, if you were to build new electric generators, the available models or facilities are very varied. You may have the very top-class, high-tech that has very few or little emissions. We are now trying to develop what is called CCS, which will catch all emissions and then will keep it underground. It is a zero emission powerhouse. But that is, of course, expensive, and it requires also very innovative technology. Of course, power has been there for many years, so if you buy the ones that are already used and cheap, you still can generate a large amount of electricity. But if you cannot afford buying the hybrid car, you still will be able to, as an example, buy an old model, and if it is secondhand it is even cheaper.

Are we just going to let them do this when their electricity demand rises? Is that really wise? That is the question. If we are encouraging them to use a more expensive technology, there will have to be a consideration on our part also of how we will be able to encourage them to purchase or use available but more expensive technology, and that requires funding. But funding is also not going to come for free. The Japanese intention is to have the developing counties also come on board in line with what we are proposing. It is not going to be a funding against a request that they may put to us. We already are presenting in broad terms a proposal. If the developing countries say this is something that they believe could be very useful for the entire world, and therefore be happy to come on board and then discuss the details with us, that is already a very positive response that we value as we look at them.

If you look at page seven you will also find that in the second paragraph, we say "it is our intention to provide such assistance to developing countries which stand ready to coordinate their policies actively in response to Japan's proposals." Thus, these will be a new type of system in which Japan will present proposals based on policies, which will lead to cooperation. If you look at the paragraph on the top of this page, the second line, the intention is also aimed at supporting developing countries with high aspirations that say "no" to further global warming, and they themselves make efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases emissions. The new funding or new financial mechanism is going to be very much policy-driven. The existing Official Development Assistance (ODA), and we are also making sure that there be no misunderstanding, the third paragraph starts by saying "We will be creating a new financial mechanism for these assistances. Instead of diverting the funds for developing countries that have been traditionally extended, Japan is looking into the possibility of creating a new financial mechanism." It is not diverting what we now have for a different purpose.

Press: Does it mean coming up with a new way of generating funds? Is it Japan that will use Japanese funds to support this, or is Japan proposing any international mechanism, like a tax or some sort of financial contribution that would be diverted to this type of global funding?

Mr. Tsuruoka: We are not excluding these possibilities, but because this is a Japanese proposal we have in mind a mechanism that we will be operating. We want others to share the goals and work in concert with us.

Press: Is it the intention that that will be additional money from Japan's budget, that would be Japan's government spending that money, and is it possible to put a dollar amount as a proportion of GDP, or something like that. Is there a figure in mind of how much money Japan is prepared to put towards this?

Mr. Tsuruoka: The answer to both of these questions is that these are undecided at this time. We have to first of all discuss this idea with the other countries, and it will again not be very useful for us to unilaterally create something in the belief that it will work without having heard from the other countries whether they will indeed welcome such Japanese action, and because this is not just ODA being made available. This is a much more policy-oriented, Japanese-operated financial mechanism. We have no details yet because we have not done this in the past; this is the first time that we will be taking on board an idea of Japanese funding, identifying what we need to do rather than keeping our doors open for requests or projects to flow in and then we do the choosing. It will be the other way around: let us first agree that "50 by 50" is a common target, and let us also agree that we need to be compatible for environmental protection and economic growth, and if you have those aspirations, we will be very happy to come and assist you in those efforts, and we ourselves believe that it is a menu that will be very appropriate for you to take on. Of course we will consult with them, because you cannot impose anything on others.

Press: But it is Japanese money?

Mr. Tsuruoka: We cannot talk about other people's money.

Press: But then you say "in concert with other... the World Bank and the United Nations," "call on other industrialized countries, the World Bank and United nations should respond and take part." You say it is not ODA, and I understand you are distinguishing from ODA the way it has operated to date, although I thought that Japan was trying to make all its ODA more policy-driven. Some ODA now, for example, goes to environment-related projects in China, for example. Is it a new subcategory of Japanese ODA? Would that be one way to think about it? An environmental ODA category? Or are you talking about some new international...?

Mr. Tsuruoka: We are not proposing an international financial mechanism. This is a Japanese financial mechanism, first of all. But we would also like others to start thinking in the same way, because the need for funding is not going to be small. That is on. Second, it is not a subcategory of Japanese ODA that we are thinking of. We are thinking of contributing in making progress in the global negotiations for the future framework of post-Kyoto, and this is a means that we hope will contribute in having other countries join and work together. We do not know whether it works or not; it has to be tested and it has to be consulted with others, and then we will start designing the system more in detail, but it is an idea, and it is unprecedented. We do not have any similar thoughts in the past. The funding will of course include ODA, but it will not be limited to ODA. There are other official flows, and there may be some coordination of other funding as well, so it is a new mechanism that does not have any precedent.

Press: So it could for example include loans from JBIC?

Mr. Tsuruoka: As appropriate. It will all depend on what we will be feeling is correct in mobilizing resources. If the money does not result in moving that country's position vis-à-vis the climate change negotiations forward, although the project may be excellent we may not fund it. That is no ODA. ODA really looks at bilateral coordination and at the merit of the project itself; there is an additional qualifier which will be decisive in making these resources available.

VI. Questions on strategies for eliciting international participation

Press: Is this linked to the fact that according this, reducing half from the current level by 2050 becomes "a common goal for the entire world." Obviously some countries are going to have much more difficulty in doing that than others; China, for instance, has a high level of emissions, and Japan relatively low. So is the idea that if they are to accept that common goal, they will need assistance, both financial assistance and technological assistance, and therefore you create this mechanism or series of mechanisms to help them to do that?

Mr. Tsuruoka: That is a fair description in general. All details, of course, need to be studied and consolidated, but I think you just caught the general thrust of what the intention is.

Press: Following on from that, this idea is based on the fact that the binding Kyoto Protocol on only a small amount of countries, Japan thinks that this does not work because we cannot include all the countries. What is the idea if with this new idea countries do not accept or do not come on board? Japan is saying that it will help countries with "high aspirations to cut emissions." What about if countries just do not want anything to do with it? Is there any way under this idea that they can be encouraged to take part?

Mr. Tsuruoka: Japan has always been very optimistic about the future, and if we are promoting something we believe is right, we also are expecting that a large number of countries will come forward and at least start discussing with us how the future framework could be formulated. We are keeping our minds open, we are not trying to tie countries down to any specific position. That is why the intention of not making the 2050-50 percent target a binding target is by intentionally not referencing it to any base year. True, if you look at countries that are rapidly developing their economies, if they think of reduction by half by 2050 and translate that into what they should take on as reduction, then they will start fearing that it may be detrimental to their economic growth. That is certainly understandable; it is logical. We are not debating that, because if you have seen the principle, we are also emphasizing the need of also making the whole system compatible with economic growth.

These are very difficult balances, and we have been debating this issue for quite some time. But then if we already agreed at the outset, as is the case in Kyoto, that countries that will reduce and be serious about mitigating the emission is the so-called Annex 1 countries, the industrialized world, and the rest of the world do not even have to think about that except to say what is the ceiling that they think is acceptable to them, it is just not going to work. I think we have already learned that. How can you break this gridlock? For us, it is not by saying that Japan will do ABC until XYZ year. They may applaud that, but then that will be it. It is not going to be a generating factor for global participation, and we have seen that. That is why we are going to do a little different approach, and this is an alternative or an additional value we believe the G8 could discuss; it does not have to be a G8 agreement: there are many options that I think could be kept open because there are disagreements and there are different interests that have to be coordinated further. This is not easy at all. It is really too soon to say what will happen during the course of the year or even next year.

Press: Do you expect this to be discussed in Germany by Japan at the G8?

Mr. Tsuruoka: Climate change is certainly going to be discussed, and when that discussion takes place, the Prime Minister will certainly explain the philosophy under which he has made this proposal and his willingness to participate constructively in the discussion, and this is going to be his base to do that.

VII. Questions concerning Japan's current progress towards meeting the Kyoto Protocol target

Press: Just in the very near future, away from this idea, in terms of the current Kyoto Protocol, is Japan very confident of meeting its targets for the current protocol?

Mr. Tsuruoka: We are determined to meet that. Yes, for sure, and that is why the Prime Minister is including the national campaign as one of the three main pillars for his initiative. There will be more to come on that front.

Press: Sorry, is there anywhere in here with the current figures for Japan's meeting of its current targets? Is there any information here for the current levels?

Mr. Tsuruoka: This describes the work that will be additionally proposed, and you can see the actual figures divided by different sectors on the right side, and there is a lot of information available on the webpage. That has much more than you really want to read, so please go to the webpage.

Press: Where is Japan now vis-à-vis its Kyoto Protocol target goal?

Mr. Tsuruoka: Today, the Kyoto Protocol target is -6 and we are around +14 * today. We have a formidable target that we need to achieve, but we will do that.

Thank you very much.


* Compared to 1990 level, current emission is +8. Against Kyoto protocol target it will be 8+6=14.


Attached Documents


Related Information (Cool Earth 50)


Back to Index